Comment by TheRoque
9 hours ago
Damn. Deno is a super old project, in 2018 the Nodejs creator did the talk "things I hate about NodeJS" and introduced Deno. It's 8 years ago now, and clearly even though the project was known by most Node users, it didn't gain any traction at all. I don't even remember "the bad parts" that Deno tries to solve, were they that bad at all ? Anyways Node will keep evolving and implement new features, new standards, optimization. I think it's super risky to move to an alternative. In the age of the LLMs, if you wanna get out of Node, you better translate all to native Go or Rust.
8 years is not super old, or even old. It's important to understand software maturity cycles for core components.
"old" is relative term. Given @TheRogue's account is 4 years old, maybe new to field. If so, it feels "old".
I understand your sentiment of justifying not being "old". but you gotta bring up "legacy code".
"Working Effectively with Legacy Code" defines legacy code as code without tests thus hard to change it easily or with confidence.
So either @TheGuardian is discussing about the age of software relative to his/her perspective or confused "legacy code" without understanding deno code base.
If 8 years is "super old" in terms of software, what is Windows? Or Emacs? Or old Fortran software from the 50s in the Voyager software?
4 replies →
> "Working Effectively with Legacy Code" defines legacy code as code without tests thus hard to change it easily or with confidence.
This is not a universally accepted definition. I've owned plenty of services with 95%+ unit test coverage, massive integ test suites, and synthetic canary tests that ran every minute that I would consider legacy. Plenty of AI slop today gets barfed out with 100% test coverage, but much of it is legacy from day 1.
2 replies →
It may not be old, but it sure hasn’t caught on much after 8 years. I did remember a lot of posts about migrating cloud functions/lambdas to deno initially, but not much since.
I’m taking the stance that no news is bad news here. If it was good, people would be doing Resume Driven Dev with deno and we would be buried in those articles. Alas.
Also it didn't hit 1.0 until 2020 so it's more accurate to say it's 6 years old.
It's not that old, but it's old enough that it should have gained a bit of traction, it should have been mentioned in more discussions etc. And ultimately adopted more. It's purely a gut feeling though because I didn't run any numbers
> I don't even remember "the bad parts" that Deno tries to solve, were they that bad at all ?
Well node and bun sought to solve the same problems after Deno demonstrated a path. They got to learn from Deno's mistakes as well.
To me Deno died the day it decided to not support npm packages and died again when it started supporting it.
Ironically the reason why I hated it when it was introduced was the reason why they added support for npm (i.e. absolute URLs don't support semver and therefore you will load multiple versions)
In what way does supporting npm packages compromise Deno's design? I don't know a lot about Deno but thought it was more about rewriting in Rust, more batteries included like native TS support, and more secure defaults.
Once Deno's direction became clear, success seemed unlikely.